Act III Post-Internet Art
Project: Praxis Proposal
- Discuss: “ubiquitous computing” + implications/prospects for art praxis
» Focus: “Distributed Aesthetics” + UbiComp → Post-Digital / “Post-Internet” Art?
— as Praxis-based Critical Discourse?
Due: Blog entry (200−300 words + media)
- Use one term from reading (article selected Monday or another from FCJ-19) to discuss your art medium/major/field in terms of application, innovation, limitations, etc.
— Optional article to discuss/use: Prada, “Web 2.0 as a new context for artistic practices” Fibreculture 14 (2009)
- Or, try composing one of the remixthebook Exercises
— note, good prompts for an optional blog entry over break week
F 21-Nov Read/Activity: Read/Activity: “Exercise in Postproduction Art and Theory”
from remixthebook (warm-up toward exercise3 + project)
» Due (S 22-Nov): Proposal/Update: ArtEvent in Networked Ecology (Exercise 3)
Proposal: ArtPraxis Update (Exercise 3)
- Due S 22-Nov
10 points (see exercise guidelines)
350–500 words + 1 media element (minimum): found (image, video) or original/edited (sketch, diagram, GIF, etc.)
— use media element/s to support your proposed ideas
» Task: Propose update for art praxis in networked media ecology — “Distributed Aesthetics” & Ubiquitous Computing — using event/exhibit (in-person display, performance) that you reviewed (in Exercise 2). Applying disciplinary conventions — academic style for critically-informed professionals and artists — of discourse community, describe your hypothetical update from insights, observations, and thoughtful consideration.
Reflecting advanced content knowledge, use at least one term/concept from 1–2 recent reading/s (e.g. Fibreculture articles from issue 7 or 19), relating to your art major/field — applying perspective & specialized terms from that as well.
- Note: in terms of style/composition, a helpful example to model in this way is Garrett-Petts & Nash, “Re-Visioning the Visual: Making Artistic Inquiry Visible” Rhizomes 18
Unlike the intended readers and imagined publication of the review, imagine and appeal to a scholarly and art-practicing audience: your chief goal is presenting insight/s for application, however theoretical or practical you envision (perhaps both?). Use specific examples to support your ideas, avoiding summary/description in favor of propositions for application. Besides speculating the potential update of the event/exhibit reviewed, you might also choose to present, with a theory-informed framing, in the style of instructions like the remixthebook (Amerika) exercises for “NetArt 2.0″ and “Postproduction”; feel free to innovate the composition as you would like, or to present as straightforward proposal, as long as the writing style supports your delivery of thoughtful ideas.
In any case, thoughtfully contemplate before composing both the unique qualities of the art form examined (in your review) as well as the specific digital technology + network media conditions at present — looking ahead and envisioning future developments for art in age of UbiComp (“Post-Internet” or “distributed” Aesthetics?). Be sure to demonstrate to readers, implicitly and explicitly, that your proposal reflects and recognizes disciplinary conventions of art-making (praxis), media theory/scholarship, and cultural discourse (“how we talk about art”). The exercise is a direct warm-up to Project 3: your conclusion should address implications or possibilities for art praxis personally, for your major/field, critical-scholarly discourse (discuss one or a combination of these areas).